Follow, retweet @dailypinster




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 115 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: The Dept of Social Protection thread
PostPosted: Mon Dec 21, 2015 4:21 pm 
Offline
Too Big to Fail

Joined: Aug 8, 2008
Posts: 3073
Location: Cathair na dTreabh
Aodhán O Ríordáin said welfare payments in respect of the estimated 1,700 children in the asylum system would rise from €9.60pw to €29.80pw “in coming weeks”. Adults will still get €19.10pw. http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-a ... -1.2473015

Meanwhile Syrian refugees are entitled to full social welfare benefits after a three month orientation.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Dept of Social Protection thread
PostPosted: Fri Feb 05, 2016 2:22 pm 
Offline
Too Big to Fail
User avatar

Joined: Aug 20, 2009
Posts: 4912
ESRI: Back To Education Allowance for Irish unemployed useless

http://www.finfacts.ie/Irish_finance_ne ... seless-332


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Dept of Social Protection thread
PostPosted: Thu Jun 23, 2016 9:44 am 
Offline
Too Big to Fail

Joined: Aug 8, 2008
Posts: 3073
Location: Cathair na dTreabh
Did I hear Leo Varadkar correctly on Newstalk there?
The DSP are buying suits for long term unemployed to go to interviews


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Dept of Social Protection thread
PostPosted: Thu Jun 23, 2016 10:06 am 
Offline
Under CAB Investigation

Joined: May 2, 2008
Posts: 1603
Location: Ireland
XMas 'bonus' to be paid again!

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/christmas-bonus-will-be-paid-again-34822256.html


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Dept of Social Protection thread
PostPosted: Thu Jun 23, 2016 10:37 am 
Offline
Of Systemic Importance

Joined: Nov 4, 2011
Posts: 5500
Location: SthDub
temene wrote:
Did I hear Leo Varadkar correctly on Newstalk there?
The DSP are buying suits for long term unemployed to go to interviews


They've always done that. Just tap up the Community Welfare Officer.
I know lads who have family weddings coming up, and then 'arrange' an interview around the same time. Big sob story to the CWO about the interview and you soon get sorted.

Eire go bragh!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Dept of Social Protection thread
PostPosted: Mon Aug 01, 2016 7:44 pm 
Offline
Under CAB Investigation

Joined: May 12, 2012
Posts: 1882
Rare to hear a politician express these sentiments on the record.

Catherine Byrne wrote:
There are some people who are poor and are “probably always going to be poor” as it is “how they have been reared”, the Minister of State for the national drugs strategy has said.
Catherine Byrne told The Irish Times it was “sad” that some “problem families”, no matter how many services they got, would never “get out of that tumble-dryer” of intergenerational poverty and unemployment.
She was responding to a question on whether the drugs crisis, in some of the areas worst affected, had been exacerbated by cuts to welfare and community services imposed by the previous government of which she was a member.
“The cuts have affected everyone. The poorest areas are getting the most money into all the services. Why is it that the services still haven’t achieved what they’re supposed to? Something has to not be working.

“But then there are people who are poor, who are probably always going to be poor and it’s nothing to do with money. It’s how they have been reared, it’s how their family has developed down through the years.
“I could tell you I have 10 families in Inchicore who I know, who have been problem families, who’ve been families in unemployment. And will they ever get out of that tumble-dryer as I call it? I doubt it, no matter how many services are in there, because there’s not the sense up here that there’s something beyond social welfare. And that’s sad, that’s very sad.”


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Dept of Social Protection thread
PostPosted: Wed Aug 03, 2016 11:49 am 
Offline
Real Estate Developer

Joined: Oct 7, 2014
Posts: 995
Skippy 3 wrote:
Rare to hear a politician express these sentiments on the record.

Catherine Byrne wrote:
There are some people who are poor and are “probably always going to be poor” as it is “how they have been reared”, the Minister of State for the national drugs strategy has said.
Catherine Byrne told The Irish Times it was “sad” that some “problem families”, no matter how many services they got, would never “get out of that tumble-dryer” of intergenerational poverty and unemployment.
She was responding to a question on whether the drugs crisis, in some of the areas worst affected, had been exacerbated by cuts to welfare and community services imposed by the previous government of which she was a member.
“The cuts have affected everyone. The poorest areas are getting the most money into all the services. Why is it that the services still haven’t achieved what they’re supposed to? Something has to not be working.

“But then there are people who are poor, who are probably always going to be poor and it’s nothing to do with money. It’s how they have been reared, it’s how their family has developed down through the years.
“I could tell you I have 10 families in Inchicore who I know, who have been problem families, who’ve been families in unemployment. And will they ever get out of that tumble-dryer as I call it? I doubt it, no matter how many services are in there, because there’s not the sense up here that there’s something beyond social welfare. And that’s sad, that’s very sad.”


Probably a slighy overstatement to say never, but it's hard to argue with the idea that there are some groups from which very few people are ever likely to emerge from poverty. I wonder what the international gold standard is for pulling people out of poverty? Anyone have any suggested reading?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Dept of Social Protection thread
PostPosted: Wed Aug 03, 2016 12:42 pm 
Online
Nationalised
User avatar

Joined: Jan 4, 2013
Posts: 16995
Location: To the right of the decimal place
Well first we need to agree on what "poverty" means. I looked up the Irish "poverty line" and it means less than 60% of median income. Which seems like not a great way to define poverty.

_________________
“If you're afraid - don't do it. If you're doing it - don't be afraid!” ― Genghis Khan

"Do, or do not; there is no try" -- Yoda


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Dept of Social Protection thread
PostPosted: Wed Aug 03, 2016 12:46 pm 
Offline
Property Magnate

Joined: Aug 19, 2011
Posts: 564
Quote:
Well first we need to agree on what "poverty" means.


@Mantissa
What would be your definition of poverty?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Dept of Social Protection thread
PostPosted: Wed Aug 03, 2016 1:03 pm 
Online
Nationalised
User avatar

Joined: Jan 4, 2013
Posts: 16995
Location: To the right of the decimal place
snaps wrote:
Quote:
Well first we need to agree on what "poverty" means.


@Mantissa
What would be your definition of poverty?


I think it should be more objective criteria; this kind of scale also exists, eg "Unable to afford three meals a day every day", "unable to afford replacement clothes when needed" etc but it's often difficult to figure out which criteria were used for which survey and press release. The media conflates them all into random stats and I suspect often compares different measurments to get incorrect stats about increase/decrease in "poverty".

(In addition the Irish objective scale I saw includes things like "Could not afford a night out in the last x weeks" which seem a bit odd; plenty of people saving up for a house or even a holiday put themselves on a strict budget which would not include regular nights out. )

_________________
“If you're afraid - don't do it. If you're doing it - don't be afraid!” ― Genghis Khan

"Do, or do not; there is no try" -- Yoda


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Dept of Social Protection thread
PostPosted: Wed Aug 03, 2016 1:36 pm 
Offline
Planning Tribunal Attendee

Joined: Apr 15, 2008
Posts: 1033
Poverty is too hard to measure, so they measure "at risk of poverty" as being below 60% of median income.

Some might be in poverty above that, and some doing ok below that. But it's seen as best practice.

Agree with Mantissa on the "couldn't afford a night out" thing. Askaboutmoney advice queries are littered with people who have an entertainment budget I'd be embarrassed to spend. And I love a good knees up, I just don't do it weekly any more. It pisses me off to hear people equating not having 100 quid a week for beer to 'struggling'. That doesn't come from a place of smug middle-class btw, it comes from growing up in a household where I often asked aloud (but more often to myself) 'how come there's always money for the pub but never any money for...'?

One wonders: amongst all off the people cribbing about back to school costs this week, who had a foreign holiday and who spent an 'entertainment' budget of 50-100 per week during the summer?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Dept of Social Protection thread
PostPosted: Wed Aug 03, 2016 1:51 pm 
Offline
Real Estate Developer

Joined: Oct 7, 2014
Posts: 995
Mantissa wrote:
snaps wrote:
Quote:
Well first we need to agree on what "poverty" means.


@Mantissa
What would be your definition of poverty?


I think it should be more objective criteria; this kind of scale also exists, eg "Unable to afford three meals a day every day", "unable to afford replacement clothes when needed" etc but it's often difficult to figure out which criteria were used for which survey and press release. The media conflates them all into random stats and I suspect often compares different measurments to get incorrect stats about increase/decrease in "poverty".

(In addition the Irish objective scale I saw includes things like "Could not afford a night out in the last x weeks" which seem a bit odd; plenty of people saving up for a house or even a holiday put themselves on a strict budget which would not include regular nights out. )


Objective scales are certainly the only way to go, but you're definitely right that it's very hard to agree on and measure that.

I think a more pressing qaulifier in this particular situation is "employed, and not directly dependent on the state for day-to-day expenses".


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Dept of Social Protection thread
PostPosted: Wed Aug 03, 2016 2:35 pm 
Offline
Single Home Owner

Joined: Apr 8, 2013
Posts: 183
The eusilc survey is the source of most often poverty data in Ireland and eu. Both of these measures above are produced from this. The at risk of poverty along with the deprivation indicators.
Not being able to afford to go out is one of the measures but the respondents need a combination of measures before they are considered deprived. both are useful measures for different purposes, the deprivation indicators were very useful to indicate stress in households with high incomes but everything going out on loans repayments for example.
Massive houses not able to afford heatingand cutting back on everything to keep going etc.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Dept of Social Protection thread
PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2016 8:56 am 
Offline
Real Estate Developer

Joined: Oct 7, 2014
Posts: 995
Bleary wrote:
The eusilc survey is the source of most often poverty data in Ireland and eu. Both of these measures above are produced from this. The at risk of poverty along with the deprivation indicators.
Not being able to afford to go out is one of the measures but the respondents need a combination of measures before they are considered deprived. both are useful measures for different purposes, the deprivation indicators were very useful to indicate stress in households with high incomes but everything going out on loans repayments for example.
Massive houses not able to afford heating and cutting back on everything to keep going etc.


Does that mean that someone in a €2 million house on Palmerston Road could be considered "deprived", on the basis that they have cashflow issues, even if they're sitting on a massive asset like that?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Dept of Social Protection thread
PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2016 9:20 am 
Online
Nationalised
User avatar

Joined: Jan 4, 2013
Posts: 16995
Location: To the right of the decimal place
muirgheasa wrote:
Bleary wrote:
The eusilc survey is the source of most often poverty data in Ireland and eu. Both of these measures above are produced from this. The at risk of poverty along with the deprivation indicators.
Not being able to afford to go out is one of the measures but the respondents need a combination of measures before they are considered deprived. both are useful measures for different purposes, the deprivation indicators were very useful to indicate stress in households with high incomes but everything going out on loans repayments for example.
Massive houses not able to afford heating and cutting back on everything to keep going etc.


Does that mean that someone in a €2 million house on Palmerston Road could be considered "deprived", on the basis that they have cashflow issues, even if they're sitting on a massive asset like that?

See my point? Measuring "poverty" is hard and means very different things to different people.

The elderly person living in a €2m house but freezing is "poor" in that they have poorly managed their finances and liquidity. A minimum wage worker (like Landlord's infamous cleaner) may have a far lower net worth but a far higher standard of living.

_________________
“If you're afraid - don't do it. If you're doing it - don't be afraid!” ― Genghis Khan

"Do, or do not; there is no try" -- Yoda


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 115 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: tulip and 11 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  

Follow, Retweet @dailypinster



Pyramid Built, Is Better Built! - Latest Property Discussions www.thepropertypin.com